根据总误差和6西格玛评估行为,并估计16个临床生化量的测量不确定度

Carolina Bignone, Eugenia Osinde, Maria Cecilia Pace, Irina Maggioni Blanco, Antonela Molfese, Viviana Osta, Sandra Ayuso
{"title":"根据总误差和6西格玛评估行为,并估计16个临床生化量的测量不确定度","authors":"Carolina Bignone,&nbsp;Eugenia Osinde,&nbsp;Maria Cecilia Pace,&nbsp;Irina Maggioni Blanco,&nbsp;Antonela Molfese,&nbsp;Viviana Osta,&nbsp;Sandra Ayuso","doi":"10.1016/j.labcli.2019.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Within the analytical quality system of the clinical analysis laboratories, it is usual to calculate Total Error (ET) and Six sigma (6Sigma). The estimation of the measurement uncertainty (U) is a parameter that should be incorporated as part of the quality management, and is a requirement of ISO 15189. The U provides a range of probable values where the true value of a measurement result can be obtained, providing a quantitative value of the level of doubt for each value. The objective of this work is to evaluate the performance of 16 analytical methods using the calculation of the ET and the 6Sigma, as well as the U, based on an approximation model of the Nordtest guide. Internal (CCI) and external quality control (EQA) data were used. Quality requirements (ETa) based on CLIA and biological variability (BV) were used to evaluate the performance of the methods. The 16 methods presented acceptable performance, with the ET values obtained being lower than the proposed ETa and the 6Sigma values<!--> <!-->≥<!--> <!-->3. Three methods have values of 6Sigma between 3 and 4, 2 methods between 4 and 5Sigma, five values between 5 and 6Sigma, and six had 6Sigmas greater than 6. The uncertainties associated with all measurements provide complementary information about the range of values in which the true value is found.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101105,"journal":{"name":"Revista del Laboratorio Clínico","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluación del comportamiento en términos de error total y 6Sigma y estimación de la incertidumbre de medida de 16 magnitudes de bioquímica clínica\",\"authors\":\"Carolina Bignone,&nbsp;Eugenia Osinde,&nbsp;Maria Cecilia Pace,&nbsp;Irina Maggioni Blanco,&nbsp;Antonela Molfese,&nbsp;Viviana Osta,&nbsp;Sandra Ayuso\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.labcli.2019.01.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Within the analytical quality system of the clinical analysis laboratories, it is usual to calculate Total Error (ET) and Six sigma (6Sigma). The estimation of the measurement uncertainty (U) is a parameter that should be incorporated as part of the quality management, and is a requirement of ISO 15189. The U provides a range of probable values where the true value of a measurement result can be obtained, providing a quantitative value of the level of doubt for each value. The objective of this work is to evaluate the performance of 16 analytical methods using the calculation of the ET and the 6Sigma, as well as the U, based on an approximation model of the Nordtest guide. Internal (CCI) and external quality control (EQA) data were used. Quality requirements (ETa) based on CLIA and biological variability (BV) were used to evaluate the performance of the methods. The 16 methods presented acceptable performance, with the ET values obtained being lower than the proposed ETa and the 6Sigma values<!--> <!-->≥<!--> <!-->3. Three methods have values of 6Sigma between 3 and 4, 2 methods between 4 and 5Sigma, five values between 5 and 6Sigma, and six had 6Sigmas greater than 6. The uncertainties associated with all measurements provide complementary information about the range of values in which the true value is found.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista del Laboratorio Clínico\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista del Laboratorio Clínico\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888400819300194\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista del Laboratorio Clínico","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888400819300194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在临床分析实验室的分析质量体系中,通常会计算总误差(ET)和六西格玛(6Sigma)。测量不确定度(U)的估计是一个参数,应纳入质量管理的一部分,是ISO 15189的要求。U提供了一个可能值的范围,其中可以获得测量结果的真实值,并为每个值提供了怀疑程度的定量值。本研究的目的是基于Nordtest指南的近似模型,利用ET和6Sigma以及U的计算来评估16种分析方法的性能。采用内部(CCI)和外部质量控制(EQA)数据。采用基于CLIA的质量要求(ETa)和生物变异度(BV)评价方法的性能。16种方法均表现良好,但所得ET值均低于建议ETa值,且6Sigma值≥3。3种方法的6Sigma值介于3和4之间,2种方法的6Sigma值介于4和5Sigma之间,5种方法的6Sigma值介于5和6Sigma之间,6种方法的6Sigma值大于6。与所有测量相关联的不确定度提供了关于找到真值的值范围的补充信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluación del comportamiento en términos de error total y 6Sigma y estimación de la incertidumbre de medida de 16 magnitudes de bioquímica clínica

Within the analytical quality system of the clinical analysis laboratories, it is usual to calculate Total Error (ET) and Six sigma (6Sigma). The estimation of the measurement uncertainty (U) is a parameter that should be incorporated as part of the quality management, and is a requirement of ISO 15189. The U provides a range of probable values where the true value of a measurement result can be obtained, providing a quantitative value of the level of doubt for each value. The objective of this work is to evaluate the performance of 16 analytical methods using the calculation of the ET and the 6Sigma, as well as the U, based on an approximation model of the Nordtest guide. Internal (CCI) and external quality control (EQA) data were used. Quality requirements (ETa) based on CLIA and biological variability (BV) were used to evaluate the performance of the methods. The 16 methods presented acceptable performance, with the ET values obtained being lower than the proposed ETa and the 6Sigma values  3. Three methods have values of 6Sigma between 3 and 4, 2 methods between 4 and 5Sigma, five values between 5 and 6Sigma, and six had 6Sigmas greater than 6. The uncertainties associated with all measurements provide complementary information about the range of values in which the true value is found.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信